Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results (Part 1)

[The Macho King]

I was bang on for Gretzky, Mario, Beliveau, and Morenz. The rest are all over the map.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Only had Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, and Lafleur. Also had Nighbor and Messier at 20 and 21, just in the wrong order.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Hadn't gone back to look at my list up to this point, but hey why not...I see my #22 is not yet inducted...but is up for voting. My #33 is unavailable thus far. My #51 is available.

 

[Sentinel]

Makarov would have been first had he not gotten 2 NRs (which are ridiculous).

Ridiculous indeed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Very nice to see Fetisov and Makarov ending up being ranked back-to-back on our list and with only 10 voting points separating them. They really are very close to each other when it comes to achiviements and our voting results mirrors that very well.

Honestly, I think it speaks to an inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments that they essentially were treated as a package deal. Two non-NHL teammates born in the same year went back-to-back on 13 of 30 ballots? That doesn’t seem a little unlikely to everyone else?

 

[bobholly39]

Honestly, I think it speaks to an inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments that they essentially were treated as a package deal. Two non-NHL teammates born in the same year went back-to-back on 13 of 30 ballots? That doesn’t seem a little unlikely to everyone else?

Maybe if they had both been available for a while and then went - or even both came at same time.

I think Fetisov was a very strong carry over from the previous round - and Makarov instantly became very appealing as a first availability. I think it's more that, than anything.

If Makarov had been available a round earlier, i don't expect they end up back to back and so close.

 

[MXD]

Honestly, I think it speaks to an inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments that they essentially were treated as a package deal. Two non-NHL teammates born in the same year went back-to-back on 13 of 30 ballots? That doesn’t seem a little unlikely to everyone else?

You obviously know where I respectively ranked them and you also obviously know the gap would just have been wider instead.

And while I didn't have them next-one-to-another, it's not a totally unreasonable position to take. And they aren't exactly the same players born on the same year for whom such a thing made sense. Hell, ultimately, at this point, I have Lemieux and Roy next to each other and they were born the same DAY. Someone probably ranked Sawchuk and Plante next to each other. Same thing for Dickie Moore and Bernard Geoffrion - and I know because it's something I nearly did myself.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You obviously know where I respectively ranked them and you also obviously know the gap would just have been wider instead.

And while I didn't have them next-one-to-another, it's not a totally unreasonable position to take. And they aren't exactly the same players born on the same year for whom such a thing made sense. Hell, ultimately, at this point, I have Lemieux and Roy next to each other and they were born the same DAY. Someone probably ranked Sawchuk and Plante next to each other. Same thing for Dickie Moore and Bernard Geoffrion - and I know because it's something I nearly did myself.

But those other pairings of players born at similar times don’t require the same mental gymnastics to equate their performances on a singular dominant non-NHL team while also offering leniency for the pairing for having not contributed substantial value beyond 30.

Moore/Geoffrion would be a closer parallel, though there’s a greater field of contemporary NHL players from which to contextualize their accomplishments, but if they similarly get ranked back-to-back on 42% of ballots, I will similarly be skeptical that they were not treated as a package to an extent.

 

[Batis]

Honestly, I think it speaks to an inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments that they essentially were treated as a package deal. Two non-NHL teammates born in the same year went back-to-back on 13 of 30 ballots? That doesn’t seem a little unlikely to everyone else?

It is of course possible that some voters viewed Fetisov and Makarov as a package deal. However if I remember correctly the voting totals of Fetisov and Makarov was pretty close in both the Round 1 aggregate list and the Round 2 final list of the Non-NHL Europeans project. So it is not as if this is the first time the community considers them being close to each other in quality. Additionally I think that the discussion in the recent Vote 6 thread showed that it is quite difficult to find much separation between them even if I personally have Makarov ahead by a small but clear margin. To add to that I had Makarov 14th and Fetisov 19th on my Round 1 list so it is not as if I had them back-to-back myself but I still on some level found it fitting that they are so close together on our list.

Edit: Regarding the "inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments" I personally think that I at least provided a rather strong attempt to help the voters get an idea of what Makarovs offensive accomplishments roughly are worth in the beginning of this post. Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6 Just to be clear (from my perpective) this is not necessarily a speculation of what Makarov would have done offensively in his prime had he played in the NHL but rather a estimate of what the things he actually did offensively during his prime roughly are worth when compared to NHL achiviements. Of course we can't know for sure the actual value of their accomplishments. But I would argue that the same to some degree also is true for the NHL-players of the 70's and 80's considering that some of the top players in the world played outside of the NHL during that time frame.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Regarding the "inability to assess the actual value of their accomplishments" I personally think that I at least provided a rather strong attempt to help the voters get an idea of what Makarovs offensive accomplishments roughly are worth in the beginning of this post. Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6 Just to be clear (from my perpective) this is not necessarily a speculation of what Makarov would have done offensively in his prime had he played in the NHL but rather a estimate of what the things he actually did offensively during his prime roughly are worth when compared to NHL achiviements. Of course we can't know for sure the actual value of their accomplishments. But I would argue that the same to some degree also is true for the NHL-players of the 70's and 80's considering that some of the top players in the world played outside of the NHL during that time frame.

Excellent point, and I definitely don’t mean to undercut some of the more fantastic work in the project so far.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'm keeping two personal lists- my Preliminary List (obviously) and a Composite List based on my latest voting patterns. I reference the latter to the former to see how the discussion has shaped my viewpoints thus far.

Either way, I've only matched the Master List in three spots- Gretzky/1, Bo. Hull/5, & M. Richard/9. I differ most markedly on the Overrated Centers- Crosby, Mikita, Clarke. I have all three of those guys a lot lower than the consensus.

Player that I had higher than most? Ovechkin. Had him in the mid-teens... he sits at 22 with the Committee.

Got a guy at 29 whom I could easily see not making the upper-half.

 

[VanIslander]

Initial lists are beside the point.

The more we rely on discussions now, the more open minded and rational our commentary can be.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm keeping two personal lists- my Preliminary List (obviously) and a Composite List based on my latest voting patterns. I reference the latter to the former to see how the discussion has shaped my viewpoints thus far.

Either way, I've only matched the Master List in three spots- Gretzky/1, Bo. Hull/5, & M. Richard/9. I differ most markedly on the Overrated Centers- Crosby, Mikita, Clarke. I have all three of those guys a lot lower than the consensus.

Player that I had higher than most? Ovechkin. Had him in the mid-teens... he sits at 22 with the Committee.

Got a guy at 29 whom I could easily see not making the upper-half.

Doing the same (the composite list). I’d love to have a repository of anyone’s updated lists - whether they’re participants or observers - at the end of the project.

 

[MXD]

I'm compiling a "Final Version" that I'm updating after each round. In some cases (like, a non Top-5 gets voted in), there's a judgment call.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I'm also doing the same... my initial list was based heavily on previous projects' discussion and ranking but the final version I'm compiling feels a lot more like 'my list'.

 

[bobholly39]

Would be fun to compare results at the end if we sample all participants updated lists to what was voted in.

I voted. I wouldn't mind getting 1 of Forsberg or Malkin (or both) next round. I definitely expect Chelios to be available.

 

[sr edler]

I also wouldn't mind Forsberg, but I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Milt Schmidt shows up next round.

 

[MXD]

Expecting Dryden so the string isn't broken. Otherwise expecting Chris Chelios. No one comes to mind for expectations.

I really hope both Charlie Conacher and King Clancy are available but I dont quite expect them.

 

[sr edler]

What string?

 

[MXD]

What string?

Goalie as #1 since vote 2. In my personal list at least. And I know he's already going first if things go a certain way.

 

[MXD]

Also, there's only 4 new players next round.

 

[pappyline]

I also wouldn't mind Forsberg, but I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Milt Schmidt shows up next round.

And that would be a good thing.

 

[bobholly39]

Also, there's only 4 new players next round.

Where do u see that?

When Dryden shows up ill consider him for #1 too fwiw.

 

[MXD]

Where do u see that?

When Dryden shows up ill consider him for #1 too fwiw.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

4 new next round.
Then a whopping 8.
Then 3.

To be honest, as a participant and without any criticism towards quoipourquoi, I can already say that I'd prefer if we would have more available players, so as to not make the R2 results too much dependant on the R1 results.

Voting only 4 players each round might have been possible but that would set us for A LOT of rounds.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Wow. Thanks for the reminder. Every candidate is going to have to get a Vote next Round. Then, the round afterwards, the gate really opens up and our ballots will have to have three NRs.

For the next nomination, Dryden seems likely- and Chelios seems likely. After that, I don't know wth the nominating committee is going to come up with.

I can see myself favoring a LOT of remainders from the un-advanced of this round.